Why I Support Mike Huckabee Over Ron Paul
Posted by Kevin on September 27, 2007
ATTENTION: THIS ARTICLE IS OUT OF DATE!!!!
GO Here: http://millerkevd.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/another-paulhuckabee-comparison/
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I grew so tired of all of those Ron Paul supporters screaming Paul’s victory that I decided to start a blog on the issue. This would be my first blog post ever so bear with me. It may be long, but it covers as much as I could think of. Please note that I do not hate Ron Paul in any way. I like him as a person and support many of his ideals, but this is for those who think he can be president. I have come to realize that he does not stand a chance. There will be those who vehemently oppose me, but I expect that. Don’t take my word for anything. Do your research.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ron Paul Has the Advantage
-Does he now?
Look at the Iowa Straw Poll! Ron Paul spent hundreds of thousands campaigning there and for what? A small 4th place? I tell you it is not Mike Huckabee who will have a hard time getting nominated… It is Ron Paul…
I enjoy many of Ron Paul’s ideas, but many I do not support. Downsizing is good, but this day in age needs different type of conservatism. It is because of this that Neal Boortz gets bashed. He believes that libertarianism is fundamentally true, but there are limitations in today’s society. However I’m rambling about ideas.
The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul has his supporters yes, but he has very limited appeal to the masses. Nothing against him it’s just his electability. Ron Paul will not get the Republican Nomination, but he will get the Libertarian’s so Go ahead vote Paul, but he will never get a republican nomination, because he simply is not Republican as it is now understood.
So Paul goes into Iowa with a huge monetary advantage and loses drastically to Huckabee, who spent close to nothing and even had ads against him.
If that doesn’t prove Huck’s electability over Paul’s nothing will.
Another reason why I will not vote for Paul is his supporters. I noticed that he attracts a slew of indecent conceited wretches on the online forums and in Youtube they flame those who oppose Paul with obscenities. They also suggest cheating in polls on Paul’s official forum! They ask for people to flood online polls like mad and gives information on how to disable IP checks with proxy’s!
No Christian would ever want to associate with that, but all I see from Huckabee supporters is kindness!
“It is not your own image that defines the way people view you; it is who you attract and stand with you who define how you appear”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Someone Asked Me This Question
“If you don’t believe me, I challenge you to find any dirt on Ron Paul and I challenge you to scrutinize his record. As conservatives, we shouldn’t compromise on principles. Correct principles of freedom never change and we need to apply those same principles to a changing world. Why do you think people are saying there really isn’t a dime of difference between the Republicans and Democrats?”
I’m not disagreeing with Ron Paul at all. I respect him as a senator as I do most senators. (I don’t believe names need to be mentioned) As far as I can see Ron Paul has his merits and vices… It is hard to find things which are wrong with Ron Paul. True I disagree with his foreign policy and a few of his downsizing maneuvers, but let me explain a few facts.
I’m sure you hear about how Paul voted NO on this, that, and that; but what legislation has he passed? Yes, he definitely has experience in being negative to expansionists. But, truthfully many of us could get that record easily.
I believe it is his views which will sadly get the better of him. He will gain no advantage when president and those who think he can do all the things he says he can do just because he is elected are living in a world of fantasy.
We need a president who will actually try to do something and not just worry about our growing government. I’d rather have a good government that follows my ideas than one that accomplishes nothing. I may be right wing libertarian at heart, but I’m looking realistically here. Society demands a different structure.
Looking at all intents and purposes of the Constitution we see the intent was to create a central government i.e. the signers where Federalists. Our government was set up as a republic, not a democracy. (a very common misconception) Finally we have the age long problem with specified powers, the extent of the elastic clause and if the implied powers existed or not.
As the US stands and has stood for a long period of time the implied powers evolved as time went on. That may have been the purpose of them to begin with. Our leaders and Forefathers where smart and they knew times would change so they left elasticity within the constitution. They knew times would require certain legislation so they provided for that.
Yes we need to downsize that much is certain, but the current system (aside from the corruption and “congressionally directed spending”) is completely constitutional!
So, I agree with Mike Huckabee. I know he can lead the country together and create a great image of the people.
I think Ron Paul would do best as a congressman and trying A lot harder to push for slow and steady government downsizing. Whatever he can do in office as president he can do in congress if he just looks for compromise. But his lack of compromise shows his inelectability as president. This does not mean he does not have a range of supporters it just means he needs to figure out a way in which he can stay tight to his ideals without scaring away his colleagues from supporting them. He would make the political divide even worse.
Ron Paul good luck on your next term as senator, show me your compromise and then we’ll talk.
But you say that we must look not look for compromise, but stick with our views. That my friend is what is known as adamancy or in blunt terms stubbornness. Someone who does not take their opponents into account can never win the debate. As a high school debater I can vouch for that. This does not mean values should be compromised it means to further your values and ideals you must compromise
“Compromise, if not the spice of life, is its solidity. It is what makes nations great and marriages happy.”- Phyllis McGinley
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Common Assertion by Ron Paul Supporters
“Ron Paul is the only one who will ‘Support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
Here is where many fail to grasp the issue. The difference between Libertarians and conservatives or liberals is the interpretation of the implied powers of the government. The constitution allows for these implied powers.
Republicans and Democrats use these implied powers of the constitution and define it broadly. Libertarians say these don’t exist or are very limited. Defending the constitution is only as you define the constitution. Support someone who defends the constitution as you do; that is the root of politics. Every party will uphold the constitution! As they define it that is.
Our Forefathers created implied powers for a reason and that is elasticity. So the government can create as many programs as it wants. Granted none of us want Bureaucracy, but again it is not outside their powers as the Constitution allows. As long as necessity for the continuation of the nation is shown then the power or action is justified, but when Congress attempts to extend these powers beyond just laws then we have a problem.
I say this again: All candidates support the Constitution! Just as they define it.
Ron Paul says it’s unconstitutional to have any Federal organization than why does he support the federal reserve with a gold standard? Such a thing requires congress to create a national currency and if you define the constitution without implied powers it would be outside of the Government’s powers. A tad bit hypocritical in a sense yes, but then he does support some government organization and so he recognizes these Implied Powers.
Remember the scandal in American history about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional? We all know that the dollar is necessary for a stable economy so the Federal Reserve is very necessary.
No matter how you look at it every party is constitutional. Anything that encroaches on our Bill of Rights is the only things which can be deemed unconstitutional, because of implied powers! It is the implied powers which separate our country into parties.Different definitions create different powers.
Take a quick study of the Constitution. Really take it in. Realize Ron Paul isn’t the sole supporter of the Constitution.
“Ron Paul is the only one who will ‘Support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” This is simply not true.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” -Dwight Eisenhower
Like I said before, Paul has not succeeded in any of his legislation so what good would a president who vetoes everything given to him and a congress that will not pass anything the president purposes? It would do us no good.
In fact it would destroy our nation’s stability!
Before you say Ron Paul is the only hope for America look into the facts. He will not get anything done and our nation will suffer for four long years.
Sure he has good ideas in terms of downsizing and truthfully every self respecting citizen in the nation hates bureaucracy, but don’t vote on who has the best ideas about government and only that.
Vote on someone who will succeed in their legislation and get things done. Mike Huckabee will do just this: he will get things done, he will truly listen to you (Vertical Politics), he is a true Reganist Conservative, he is a fluent speaker, a uniter, and an all around honorable man! That is Mike Huckabee!
Paul? He just stands for his beliefs and will never compromise; so say to no unity. He listens to only himself; say no to Vertical Politics. And no offense, but he isn’t that great of a speaker, especially when compared to Huckabee.
Huckabee sees success even in disadvantage. Think of the Iowa and Club for Growth against him. Do yourself and your country a favor and vote for Mike Huckabee.
“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” – Abraham Lincoln
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
ATTENTION: THIS ARTICLE IS OUT OF DATE!!!!
GO Here: http://millerkevd.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/another-paulhuckabee-comparison/
John said
I agree Mike is our best bet as president!
Ryan Stallings said
Those are some amazing points! I didn’t know all of that before. . .
Kevin, I want to thank you for what you’re doing here. People need to know the issues.
Speaking of issues, I’ve also read some stuff about Ron Paul that I didn’t see here, and I think that you might want to know, Kevin. Also, any Ron Paul supporters or opponents should read this site as well. It’s called The Republican Evaluator (http://therepublicanevaluator.blogspot.com).
The guy is doing an very logical analysis of each Republican Candidate’s position (complete with references and quotes from the candidate being analyzed). He did Ron Paul first (other candidates to come), and I think that everyone should read specifically the section on Ron Paul and Abortion – it was quite surprising.
Here’s the link again: http://therepublicanevaluator.blogspot.com
God Bless!
– Ryan
Kevin said
Thank you, Ryan I’ll check the page out!
James said
Great blog here! Keep up the work!
Check out my OCTOBER CHALLENGE to Huckabee supporters: http://okforhuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/09/october-challenge-from-okforhuckabee.html
George H said
Ron Paul is ten times what Huckabee will ever be…
All the straw polls point to Ron Paul as the front runner!
Moshe Kerr said
Its quite apparent that you worked very hard on this blog – Congratulation.
COUNTER-POINT: VOTE FOR RON PAUL
A constitution of a country requires the leaders of the generations to interpret the intent of the Framers. Its the constitution that mandates government authority and as such qualifies as the supreme law of the land. Your points why a person should not vote for Ron Paul.
1) He’s a lone wolf. Diplomacy, as i understand it, means: the art of forming alliances. Should Ron Paul wrestle the nomination of the Republican party which opposes his leadership and then defeat the Democratic leader in the general election, this man’s going to have one heck of a political mandate from the people. Politicians like sailboat follow the political winds; elected officials know on which side their toast has butter. Special interests have no influence over unemployed politicians! A Ron Paul government would qualify as a first class political miracle.
2) A Paul government want pass any legislation but shall stifle government leadership. Justice, as i understand it, means: Intra-alliance diplomacy. The first priority of government centers on maintaining the “alliance” that binds individuals, groups and conflicting interests into a common nation/people. “I pledge alligiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands one nation etc” Placing ones hand over the heart and reciting words that’s easy. Not stealing, oppressing or sexually molesting a peoples accepted morality that’s something completely different. Crime and violence and the desire for police protection comes when the individuals of a society fail to see that they share an alliance with one another. Prisons and fines accomplish nothing toward achieving the first and most fundamental priority of government: maintaining the alliance that binds individuals ect into a nation.
3) All parties support the Constitution. The leaders of every generation have to determine the borders of Constitutional rule. An example: Can the President of the United States conduct a war without a Congressional Declaration of War? The post world war 2 US executive branch governments starting with Korea have held that a UN mandate supercedes a Congressional mandate. The current Executive does war without even a UN mandate! Leadership has to determine the Constitutional borders of a political nation state. Ron Paul qualifies as a Constitutional leader directing the nation how he logically interprets the intent of the Framers. The others rely first on political precident rather than the language of the Constitution. For example: The Bolsheviks swept into power in 1917 their “revolution” had no pre-existing Constitution. The perspective of people out of power view a completely different reality than the perspective of people in power. The consequence Lenin followed by Stalin substituted the Soviets in place of the Constitutional Assembly, substituted the boshevik party in place of the Soviets, substituted the Dictator in place of the bolshevik party etc. Common law operates precident. But legal precident requires a bedrock of constitutional authority. Leaders through the generations must rule if a particular precident qualifies as a valid precident. Herein lays the essence of the Ron Paul effort to become President of the United States. Therefore having weighed your excellent criticism the scales tilt toward Ron Paul. This man can save America from itself. thank you for giving me to hold a wonderful exchange of views. I wish you and your family prosperity and peace.
Kevin said
Moshe Kerr?
Sounds like a pseudonym… hmm anyway. I wanted to thank you for civilized discussion. I’ve blocked a few obscenities from some of your constituents. *sigh*
1) Good point there… Politicians play the game and IF Ron Paul gets elected they may be bound to follow, but I still doubt that enough will follow. Let me point out to you we have socialists in our country! Those who want socialized government… I do not think they’d be willing to support Paul. Yes, I figure if Paul had as big of support as claimed there would be a difference, but from what I see there is limitation to the message. His views are deemed “absurd.” Hmmm… I’m not addressing you point… OK here’s the deal. We are in a beurocratic state right now and unless there is a true revolt of immense I mean IMMENSE proportions I do not see that coming to an end. Also… people are dumb… they’ll believe whatever is thrown at them… Being a loner won’t get you far enough you still need a stronger backing to see sufficient support.
2)OK here one Libertarian view that I staunchly disagree with… The truth of the matter is that the US was founded to become a united front. The individual is the support of the Nation, but what good will it do if we cannot settle our differences and agree? The whole essence of laws if for protection. I am aware of personal freedoms, but even in that sense no person has right to deprive of life liberty or happiness, BUT!
We must not be impelled to separation… Natural Law must take precedence… (Clarification “Natual Law” closely means God’s Law) Yes true but we MUST do all in our power to protect life. If someone is deemed a degenerate of life liberty of the pursuit of happiness than they are imprisoned. Remember the government was founded to “Promote the general welfare.” That thereby gives them every right to imprison someone who steals or kills. Etc… But I guess what your saying is that liberty comes before unity: however, you cannot sacrifice possibility of immorality. Laws are there for protection.
Now let me make it clear if you are talking about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS I 100% agree! Destroy this political correct society! That is just stupid, people have every right to bigotry if they please… They have free speech. The government cannot regulate how religion is preformed because they don’t want the church messing with the state… HAHA!!! yeah right! the separation was established so State could not regulate anything religious unless in protection of inalienable rights, but a person’s religion could effect the state all they want PROVIDED that they don’t press their own religion on others…
3)
Nuff said… He MAY require it…
Also if your saying that International Law should trump National Law than that’s utter poppycock! Screw the UN they fail! Excuse me… Premptivity is the correction of a mistake we have made long ago repetitively…
If this is unclear I apologize… I’m tired and I just typed this up quickly with little or no thought…
Moshe Kerr said
Kevin shalom,
Moshe is hebrew for Moses, allot of my friends call me Mosc, Mosc is Russian for Moses. At Texas A&M i majored in Soviet foreign policy between the two great wars. Economics was one of my many minors. I wrote a term paper predicting the fall of the Soviet Union 8 years before it actually fell. Long drawn out military spending returns nothing back to the economy its light pour money down a black hole. America has gone from post ww2 from the richest most industialize power to the greatest debter nation on this planet. The national debt, if a person took fresh Fed fiat money and made a pile of dollars, the national debt could make something like 10 piles that reached the moon! America’s broke. There big bubbles just asking for someone to pop them. 19 years ago just before i moved to Israel, the savings and loan banks were in a crisis. These banks represent only 5% of the banking industry. But the government bailed these banks out, cus if people realize that the federal insurance on money exists only as a bluff and people rushed the banks like they did in 1929 the history could very easily repeat itself. Socialist ideas apeal to me, i’m very left wing in my political views even to this day. The socialist political theories of Communism and anarchism made popular and famous in the middle to late 19th century, criticized the political theories of the late 18th century Hobbes Jefferson Rousaou (spelling besides the guys a frenchman) Paine ect. These political theories which profoundly shaped the notion of Citizen Rights and democracy, these brillian theoriest all live prior unto the Industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution profoundly change human society. Prior to the revolution all human societies had agriculturely based economies, wealth came from the land, 90 to 95% of human populations lived in rural societies. The industial revolution brought people to the cities and a human population explosion occured. During the middle ages when the black plague wiped out 1/4 of europe and russia, less than 40,000,000 lived in all these lands! The point being that Marx others based their political and economic theories based on an environmental reality of unregulated business 16 hour a day working condition, children under 12 working 12 or more work shifts, you get the picture, and their politics rebelled against the status quo. These socialist political theoriests dominated 20th century governmental orders of society.
As an non believer praise the G-d your last response included allot of religious non sense in vague general terms. The apostle Paul, really missed the boat. By calling the Torah law, “we’er not under the law” and other such total non sense, this pathetic idiot confused 2000 years of christian mystery religions. The notion of commandments concerns the concept of a “brit” the translation of this term being “alliance”. The hebrew for the US being the brit among the states. The great Teacher of my people for whom i’m named after, taught a concept that G-d has no inheritance in this world, unless a group of people agree among themselves to accept defined obligations upon themselves (the king james mistranslation calls these obligations “commandments”), for the purpose of dedicating these defined obligations that a thereby determined a people, called Israel, that the Elokim would have an inheritance in this world by means of people keeping their mutually agreed upon obligations. The father of this people, Avraham, because this gent sought to give the Elokim an inheritance in this world, measure for measure, the Elokim swore to give his descendents a land inheritance ie the promised land. A brit requires an oath, on both sides for an agreement to become binding. Hence this famous gent, Avraham, swore in turn to command his descendents to rule this pomised land with justice. Hence the Torah which the apostle Paul called as Law, only sought to employ laws as a vehicle to establish Justice on the land. It might seem like a fine point, but if you’ve ever fired a rifle a tiny error in the beginning can cause that the bullet completely misses the target at the end. Justice does not primarily or even secondarily concern who’s right and who’s wrong. Rather Justice focuses on diplomacy that prevents the conflicting allied partners within a “people” from destroying their mutual alliance and themselves. Rule of Law serves as the external forms or garments to achieve the substance or cause as oppossed to effect of Justice.
Religion got in the way and really screwed up a fantastic political masterpiece! The next great dude listed as one of the fathers of Israel, Yitzak, (Yitzak Rabin the murdered Israeli PM some years back was named after this dude) The goyish bible translates this name as Isaac. Goy by the way means “nation” and Israel the Torah calls “goy”. Later people used this term as a label of abuse but that’s their problem not mine. There’s nothing racist in calling England a nation, or an englishman a goy. We Jews wandered homeless for 2000 years in exile so goy did not really apply to us during that long nightmare.
During the long exile, the host countries did not favor Jews discussing political ideas; the dark ages were pretty harsh times to say the least, for Jews to discuss the Constitutional principles of Torah would have provoke the lord or priest to do a pogrom and wipe out a community, not a good idea. So the Rabbis limited their discusions of Torah to ritual laws of religious belief in god. I find Ron Paul exceedingly interesting because he’s attempting to show the relavence of the 220 year old constitution and political theoriest in Israel struggle with a similar notion of proving the modernity of the Torah today as a political document. Currently Israel has no constitution.
Historically the last time the Torah functioned as the Constitution of Israeli state was something like 3000 years ago! When the bible says that the Israelites came out of Egypt armed, this alluded to the purpose of militarily conquoring the lands of Canaan. The Huns militarily conquored and over ran countries. But because these warriors had no Constitution and shaped the culture of a people and defined acceptable society, the Huns ruled their conquored peoples but kept the institutions of these conquored societies. Hence the ancient Israelites received their “Constitution” prior to invading the lands. A people in order to uproot a pre existing culture this requires having a clearly defined replacement culture.
A generation does not make a nation. The generations required a logical method by which the generations could systematically logically interpret the intent of the Framer based upon the situation of the times. This logic its called “Oral Torah” and its codified in a document called the “Talmud”. This Talmud employs a logical system radically different that that of Aristotle and Plato. The latters logic brought europe out of the dark ages. Jews to this day light Channaka lights dedicating themselves, at least superficially, to the logic employed through the Talmud’s subject matter.
Hegel which so profoundly influenced Marx reinvigorated Aristotles’ logic. And the 20th century especially based upon this revamped logic began to develop whole new concepts of political theory. I hope this does bore you i don’t know how educated you are, but studying political thought back unto its roots i find “facinating” to quote mr. spock – another jewboy.
In the University Troskii was my hero, i have all his writings in my home and hope to teach them to my 9 year old daughter, her name’s Dassi – the king James translates this name as Ester, but the hebrew’s so much more beautiful.
B Reyes said
I am voting for Ron Paul. He is my man. I consider him to be the best candidate in this race , democrat or republican. He is a man that has based his entire governmental career on principle, not on what’s popular that moment.
You mention that because hasn’t never passed any legislation, he is worthless. He is not. People are attracted to him because he has never budged an inch. He has never compromised, he has never sold out to special interest lobbyists.
A quick note in regards to the Fed. They are not necessary and cause more problems than solve. They are directly responsible for: the 1929 stock market crash, the great depression of the 1930’s, the stagflation of the 1970’s, the recession of 1980-1982, the 1997-2000 tech bubble, and the current housing and credit market collapse we are currently eperiencing. Their tampering with interest rates and money supply cuase the boom and bust cycles we experience. They are the cause of all monetary inflation, please check your facts on this, you will see Dr Paul is correct.
Even if you disagree with me or disagree with Ron Paul, I ask that you please stop mis-representing his views.
Thank you.
Ryan McD said
The President yeilds enormous power, more so than at any point in the United States history. If he were elected to President, he could bring the troops home as soon and as safe as possible. Not only from Iraq, but from places where they’ve been for 50 years. We can save $100’s of billions every year by doing this! That makes a big difference on the ecnomy. His foreign policy alone makes me want to vote for him.
True conservative, the kind that Reagan (pre-1980), Barry Goldwater and Taft used to advocate isn’t dead. The message is just lost and needs to be heard again. I have no doubt that the republican party would follow Ron Paul if he were elected. So many people from all walks of the political spectrum are rallying to Paul. All of my friends who voted for John Kerry love Ron Paul. the message of liberty is uniting and has no political party. If congress doesn’t support ron paul they won’t win re-election.
Ron Paul also knows economic policy better than any candidate out there. He understands the history of economic policy and what truly drives inflation. I personally have hated our monetary system for years (I’m pretty young so not that long). When I heard an actual candidate talk about how the Fed actually works, I almost crapped my pants. There are debates with Ron Paul and Federal Reserve board members on youtube and its quite clear that he knows what he is talking about.
I’ve been very apathetic about government and politics my whole life, but Ron Paul has cured it for me. I always considered myself a democrat, but that’s because i didn’t know there was still a true conservative voice out there.
Good luck on your blog,
Ryan
Kevin said
“Even if you disagree with me or disagree with Ron Paul, I ask that you please stop mis-representing his views.”
EDIT- I am not misrepresenting anything… explain yourself…
Ah… I see I’ve finally caught you and your buddy’s attentions.
Here’s the deal. I’ll write another blog on this how’s that? For the record I know exactly what Ron Paul Stands for. I know what works and I know historical precedent.
Let me tell all of you and your buddies hello! Read my rant and email me. I’d be glad to inform you. Maybe a slap or two will get you back to your senses.
Let me get this strait with everyone.
I AM A LIBERTARIAN!
I THINK THE WAR ON DRUGS IS STUPID!
I HATE GOVERNMENT BEURACRACY!
all right no caps… well lets see… I pretty much hate the DOE, The president does have a lot of power yes, Socialism is running abound in this country ie “Liberals” oh geez guys what I could tell you.
For the record I may be in Highschool but I’ve come to realize that I know more about how this system works than a vast majority of the US… You know what to tell you the truth I do not like Ron Paul not because of his position on issues (except the war that is one reason I do not like him) but because of the way he talks the way he presents himself the way he proposes to implement radical legislation. Sure I’m all for government downsizing. Kill social security and cut taxes, but you know what Paul is not my solution. I have my reasons and I’m rambling and not making any sense so I’ll stop now and write a few blogs tomorrow.
In other news… Thanks for the traffic! But this voter is not budging ever!
Kenny Griffin said
If you dont budge then get use to bigger intrusive government huckabee/thompson/mccain/rudolf are all just hillary clinton on steroids.I guess you love the irs and love the nanny government. both Parties are the same,look at your paycheck and bendover.
Ron Paul 2008 or the gop can die for all i care they are just as bad as the democrats.
fedreserve said
i dont really want to waste my time on this, but you really, really, need to find out more of what you are talking about before you make the kind of assumptions you have made.
you said
“Remember the scandal in American history about the Federal Reserve being unconstitutional? We all know that the dollar is necessary for a stable economy so the Federal Reserve is very necessary.”
I dont even understand this, which might explain the whole thing. However, the whole point is that our money used to be backed by gold and silver, so that it had backing power. Along comes private bankers, and causes the depression on purpose, which has been proven (read a book sometime). So that they could create the federal reserve, which is NOT a federal institution which you imply in the paragraph above (also proven not some conspiracy theory, again read a book). They shadily over the years, changed it to where the dollar was backed by nothing, and owned by them.
In summary, dollars existed before the Federal Reserve. So to say, do we need the dollar? of course, duh is ridiculous. It seems as though if you are implying that going against the federal reserve is to go against currency, which I don’t even know of that being a stance.
Thomas Jefferson was concise in his early warning to the American nation, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
“Give me control of a nation’s money, and
I care not who makes her laws”
Mayer Rothschild, (one of the men that took part in the creating of the federal reserve, and no I can’t give you video tape of a room of men saying Hi, im so and so and so and so, and we are private bankers creating the federal reserve, it’s ridiculous, i find it somewhat truthful when lots of congressman of the era were concerned and quoted of being agianst the federal reserve, and saying that it was a fraud. that can be quoted and is about the best “proof” that can be give)
In 1968, a Minnesota court found the Federal Reserve to be unconstitutional. Six months later, the judge was found dead, poisoned. I wonder why other judges would be scared to take on the case….
Is the Federal reserve a private bank?
I am not going to discuss multitudes of individuals that say yes, because you could easily say that they have no proof. Which is about the best proof you can get. The Federal Reserve is not just going to stand up and say, yes we are private, it is unconstitutional. That is just ridiculous, or course they will lie.
If you believe it is not then why in June of 1963 did JFK issue executive order 11110, that very bluntly and specifically would put the control of the money in the hands of the government. This would not make sense, if the Federal Reserve was indeed part of the government. The only things that say the Federal Reserve is not private is in fact the Federal Reserve. (what do you expect?)
Just after JFK was killed, LBJ passed it back, that also very bluntly and specifically put the control of the money back into private hands.
I tried to keep this simple in order to get a response.
Thanks in advance,
joshua
Kevin said
Response to my new blog…
First of all I don’t need to read more on economics or history for that matter. This is two semesters of college Macroeconomics talking.
My advice, don’t assume a person is without knowledge if you wish to win an argument such a think is close to ad hominim. It’s no way to win.
In any case I guess I should brief you:
The “Bretton Woods System” or in layman’s terms “Gold Backed Curency” was discontinued because of the instability it spawned. under this system the US reserves dwindled to nothing and from there trade deficits grew. People knew that given time the dollar would simply collapse. So we no longer have a goldbacked currency. The old gold backed standard worked for a while, but as evidenced with the Bretton Woods System such an action will not help us. I suggest you read up on you history mate…
“I’ll give you a hint: those who manipulate fake paper currencies do not do so for the benefit of the poor or middle class. They do so for their own benefit. In order to save what’s left of this country, we must empower the people by returning to what the Constitution was originally written – that money should be gold and/or silver, nothing else. Study your history.”
Do you want to know why the dollar raises and lowers in value? Inflation! Yes supply and demand and consumer demand creates fluctuations in the dollar’s value. Curbing inflation makes the dollar decrease in value etc… *sigh* I really do not want to explain this…
You say the FED only cares about themselves. I wander what hole you crawled out of? The government is not always out to get you… The FED does not purposely screw you over. If interest rates rise it is for the control of money in circulation. Interest rates are a way of controlling money flow and in turn inflation. Oh yeah and for the record money is not “dollars” the money you have in your back is not dollars! It is in fact just money placed at being worth a set amount of dollars.
In any case if you wish to learn more about laissez-faire I suggest you read what John Maynard Keynes had to say about it. Keynes states that the natural state of the economy is not full employment as first believed and that a live and let live policy can only lead to frequent recessions. Think of it as a car rolling down hill. Normally the car will speed up as it goes down, but Keynesian economics applies the brakes to the car so that it does not hit the tree at the bottom of the hill. Read about economic policy. Classic economic policy has been disproven time and time again. Read up on it from both sides, but see that only one side has precedence on its side.
“FairTax is a zero-sum game for the government, which doesn’t address either the cause (the printing press / FED) or the effect (massive overspending).”
Bah, this tells me how much you know about economics. News flash! If you have more money in your pockets would you be a little inclined to buy that extra gadget that you always wanted? Of course! Same goes that if businesses cost of production falls then they can sell goods with greater profit. Tell me why that does not fix a whole mess of things? The Fair Tax world would be amazing. America would become the Tax Haven of the world. Think of that! Businesses will flock to the tax free environment! It’s the natural order… Read the “Fair Tax Book.” I simply cannot explain everything to you.
What I learner from your comment is that you hold yourself in high esteem. Scrutinize your beliefs. I have found no reason why I should change my views from your comment. I know from history that a Gold Backed Dollar could prove disastrous… Go on prove me otherwise. I’m open to what you have to say if it has backing, but from what I see you are so obsessed with hate towards the government that you cannot think rationally. Clear your mind and think objectively. It helps.
bohemian said
Great Blog!
I like Ron Paul for being known as “Dr. No” when it comes to constitutional issues; but I do not think anybody can deny that he comes off pretty darn radical sounding when he talks about sequestering the United States from the rest of the world and only fighting battles on U.S. soil…
Being a Separatist and Isolationist are not qualities becoming a President of the United States…
I think Ron Paul can do the most good in Congress where he is at; he is to narrow minded to be the leader of the free world…
This combined with absolutely no proven leadership experience really puts Ron Paul out of it; and he got schooled by Mike Huckabee for his ridiculous tirade on the war on terror…
Those who carefully look at the fair tax initiative http://www.fairtax.org/ understand that this is the only logical means to abolish the IRS, long overdue…
Obviously, none of the democrats have any integrity this time around…
So we are left with who do you think is the best Republican candidate for President in 2008?
. Anti-Gun, Liberal, Amnesty Loving, “If your illegal, undocumented, New York Welcomes you with open arms” Rudy Giuliani?
. Anti-Gun, “I Will Bring The Assault Weapons Ban Back”, Liberal, Mormon Mitt Romney?
. Amnesty Loving, we must be nice to terrorists John McCain?
. Second Amendment Sell-Out, flip-flopping Fred Thompson?
. Separatist, Isolationist Ron Paul?
Conservatives are choosing Mike Huckabee…
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
Mike Huckabee on the issues and policies:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Home
Moshe Kerr said
Nixon took the US completely off the gold standard, America needed money cus Nixon was setting up dictators in American backed revolutions in Chile, that American back barbarian murdered 10s of thousands of innocents. Nixon and Kissinger illegally bombed Cambodia, more bombs than all of ww2 dropped on a country and the American people knew nothing of this secret illegal war. Bombing Cambodia into the stone age resulted in Pol Pot and the killing fields. In short Nixon needed paper money and America was broke. Economics does not exist divorced from the larger political realities. Nixon embraced a reactionary foreign policy, he went to China as an attempt to counter balance the growing Watergate scandal that eventually threw this disgraceful man out of office. Nixon supported Israel in the 73 Yom Kippor War. Kissenger’s mother was Jewish SO WHAT! These criminals deserve the death penalty. The American Empire has shed too much innocent blood. Ron Paul seeks to end this european imperialist tradition that post world war 2 America has embraced starting with Truman.
As a left wing Troskiite i can appreciate how FDR stole the communist political platform in the early 1930s. But the American traditions diverge radically from the european traditions on economics. Deficit spending reduced much of the suffering during the Depression years. But its important to remember that the Supreme Court ruled much of FDR’s socialism as unConstitutional. FDR reacted by attempting to change the number of sitting judges on the court, this scandal almost destroyed his Presidency but then came the war in europe and the nation’s attention turned to other pressing war matters. Post ww2 all American governments following in the pre established traditions of FDR. But today America’s broke and printing money want change this fact.
Kevin said
…
You are rambling my man Moshe Kerr and I do not see how this has anything to do with what I said.
How does this prove me wrong. All you do is bash GOP presidents for militant actions. Give me proof not “Red Herring Arguments.” Fallacies my work for the uninformed, but not for me…
Moshe Kerr said
Kevin shalom,
“Red Herring Arguments”
Enghish composition 101 a general statement should include at least 3 particular qualifying statements. The logic being General/specific.
Please include some specifics that prove your thesis statement: “Red Herring Arguments” and i’ll shall do my best to answer you with respect.
Kevin said
You seem to be trying to 1up me here by telling me to develop a point. What I was saying was that you where being irrelevant:
Simply put you are running away from the true argument here. I will not write an essay for you so deal with my sentences for now. =)
TVMH said
Um, Dr. Paul is not a senator…he is a member of the US House of Representatives.
I would hope that lack of precision in research is not a common theme here, considering what is alleged to have happened in the Wayne Dumond case.
GST said
Kevin Says:
“You know what ,to tell you the truth, I do not like Ron Paul not because of his position on issues (except the war that is one reason I do not like him) but because of the way he talks, the way he presents himself….”
I was going to start a reasoned debate with you until i read the above quote. It totally disqualifies you in my eyes. Do you like Mitt Romney? he has nice hair (supposedly)
The only thing I will say is the Fair tax is better than the income tax , yes. Ron Paul says he would prefer no income tax and replace it with nothing (which would bring us back to 2000 levels – it is very much possible) but would support the fair tax.
This is quite irrelevant however. If your currency is fiat theres no adequate/practical way to curtail spending. The inflation devastates the poor and middle class. Even Alan Greenspan said the following ,on Fox news ,about a week ago :
“Some mechanism has got to be in place, which restricts the amount of money, either a gold standard, or a currency board, or something of that nature, because, unless you do that, all of history suggests that inflation will take hold with very deleterious (harmful or injurious) effects on economic activity.”
GST said
bohemian Says:
“. Separatist, Isolationist Ron Paul?”
Oh come on.
Paul is a non-interventionist. NOT Isolationist.
Do you know the difference or do you intentionally misrepresent other candidates?
Personally, I quite like Huckerbee. Mainly for his views on the fair tax. I wouldnt go around misrepresenting him , since i view him as 1 of the few other candidates who wouldnt be a total disaster for the US like Rudy, Mitt, McCain , Hillary etc . Id politely ask you to do the same.
John said
Remember Paul has 5-6 times as much cash as Huckster. Huckster will do well in and possibly win Iowa due to the Christian right there. Paul will do well and possibly win N.H. due to its libertarian, anti-war stance. Romney will win Michigan and Paul will do well there. Rudy, McCain and Thompson will be the players in S.C. and Florida. Nevada is up for grabs, but Paul will do better there than Huckster, being Sin City and all.
Come Super Tuesday (if it exists anymore) Huckster and McCain will be broke and out of it. Thompson will fade fast and also be broke. Romney and Rudy will split the neocon vote while Paul takes the rest to the convention, where the deals will start to happen and who knows from there.
Kevin said
“I was going to start a reasoned debate with you until i read the above quote. It totally disqualifies you in my eyes. Do you like Mitt Romney? he has nice hair (supposedly)”
A sense of humor! Hehe I like it… by the way have you ever heard of sarcasm? Anyway I would like to say that has barely anything to do with why I disagree with him. Or where you not paying any attention at all. It’s a jest my man. Read my new blog.
But if your serious and you wont argue because of that then you lost credibility to me. Refusing to debate because of one issue like this is like shirking away from a challenge. Also it is more or less an insult and constitutes a fallacy. Oh well keep trying! You have not convinced me.
“This is quite irrelevant however. If your currency is fiat theres no adequate/practical way to curtail spending. The inflation devastates the poor and middle class. Even Alan Greenspan said the following ,on Fox news ,about a week ago”
Expert though he is he has historical precedence AGAINST him. Gold Backed currencies are shown to increase inflation and are only as effective as the amount of gold at hand. Yes, I agree Mr. Greespan there needs to be a more stable dollar, but a gold standard to the wrong approach.
Keep in mind that his statement is only in context to the current market. It has nothing to do with a Fair Tax market…
Kevin said
“Do you know the difference or do you intentionally misrepresent other candidates?”
Oh no I’m not misinterpreting him. He calls it “noninterventionalism,” but the essence of his policy is isolationism. Only in political terms of course. I guess it was a poor choice of words. I know Paul does not mandate economic isionaltionism. I just used it for lack of a better word…
Now are you going to argue or continue to try and discredit me?
Kevin said
“Remember Paul has 5-6 times as much cash as Huckster.”
This means nothing. Huck has raised 400,000 in less than a week without doing anything to promote the contributions until recently. I wouldn’t worry about money though…
Kevin said
ALSO PEOPLE THIS ARTICLE IS OUT OF DATE!!!!!!!!!!
GEEZ!!!
Go here: http://millerkevd.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/another-paulhuckabee-comparison/